Someone credible stated on another forum today in response to my posts above, that he vouches for the accuracy of Scott's recordkeeping from 2003 - 2010.
He stated that Scott was more than fair in his grading those years.
I'd like to note that I felt the same about Scott's grading last year - more than fair.
You didn't need to go another forum there were plenty of times he gave himself a push or a lost when I would email him back telling him a better number could be easily attained. That was before this release time and he would give all his plays at once. Last year towards the end of the year he was close to winning a contest and didn't want to release his plays till Saturday and he would take the worst of it on some of the games. His honesty should never be in question I know him for a while and we have talked on many occasions. Not much this year not much to say. Cut the guy a little slack He's never been through anything like this before the pressure has to be bothering him. I said this somewhere on page 10, 11, 12 somewhere lets just kill this thread. I know Goats that would be censorship and we don't do that here but this horse is dead long ago. Goats I mean that in a respectful way it's the decision of the board and I will abide by it. I just think there's really nothing more to say. Maybe it takes some pressure off you know he's reading. I will not post again in this thread.
O-T, as always you're welcome to your opinion, but obviously others still have more to say or the thread would have faded away on its own. Ed even contributed something just last night, so I doubt he'd be in favor of locking it (which of course he has the power to do himself since it's his forum).
Personally, I feel there are still valid points being made, some of which have nothing to do with Scott but are more general in nature.
I was a member last year of Scott's service. Couple points
1-The general math used, similar to Dr Bob's is becoming more and more saturated into the market. Scott does do a good job of breaking this down further with injuries, QB's, etc which helps. But that being said, relying less on math edges and more on the angles to tie into the math is what sent Dr Bob to breakeven.
2-While they probably intend well, you shouldn't follow a tout's bankroll suggestions. If you are betting 3% on NFL (aggressive, especially on Friday) then you probably should be betting even more on stuff like RAS cbb. So it's either huge variance, or your weighting is out of whack compared to your edge. Which definitely can happen, but it's not ideal.
It's always been apparent that Kellen doesn't bet himself.
1) Stating that his plays should be bet at 3% of br.
2) Never any attempt to market cap/frequently losing tons of line value by the time he posts.
He did say this season at one point that he was going to release earlier for line value, but gave that up after 1 or 2 weeks.
3) He sent out his releases for most of last year without rotation numbers.
4) Arguing against resizing bets until the end of that year's NFL season.
Not resizing $ wise or % wise? Not resizing the $ amount is obviously catastrophic when losing. Keeping the % is fine if you really think everything is still in tact
I agree with this OT. Parlays get a bad rep because of the lack of true payouts (should we not wager straight bets either as they do not have true payouts) as the books need to make $$$ too. But if you have a guy with a track record of 55% or 56% (less than 1% of the population) than a betting approach involving parlays makes sense and can be more profitable than straight wagering.
I agree also, most people don't agree with it and will refute it, even when the math is laid out for them.
Yes, I'd like to see this laid out for us as well.
Trust me, NOONE hits 55% over thousands of plays (yes, when they are monitored). A service that advertised that they hit 55% would get extremely few customers. Dr Bob made a huge mistake in explaining his system. A HUGE MISTAKE!
Trust me, NOONE hits 55% over thousands of plays (yes, when they are monitored). A service that advertised that they hit 55% would get extremely few customers. Dr Bob made a huge mistake in explaining his system. A HUGE MISTAKE!
Yes, I'd like to see this laid out for us as well.
In terms of ev the math is relatively trivial, P^2*13/5-(1-P^2)>P*1/1.1-(1-P) when P= 35/66, P^3*6-(1-P^3)>P*1/1.1-(1-P) when P=(3/11)^(1/2), and so on...
In terms of growth the math is probably beyond the scope of this thread (and I realize the above will be bts for many as well, but you asked), however the posts you quoted are consistent w/ rational utility functions.
Yes, I'd like to see this laid out for us as well.
This is addressed to the entirety of the BT family, so when the word you is employed, it is in the sense of the collective and not singular to you, lest you feel slighted in some fashion.
first start with the understanding the house edge on parlays is much greater than the 4.54% on the -110 Straight Bet. next, check your book for their parlay payouts. we can use 13/5 to keep it simple, but the math is simple and i will provide the equations here and you guys can toy with the numbers.
much like a coin flip for our example, we will use an expected win rate of 50%, which would put the likelihood of hitting a 2 tmr at 25% (.50 X .50) and a 3 tmr at 12.5% (.50 X .50 X .50), you get the idea.
so we take our expected win rate on 2 tmr 25%
multiplied by our payout on winners 13/5
minus our expected lose rate on 2 tmr 75%
mulitplied by our loss on the parlay 1
so we have .25 X 13/5 - .75 X 1 to get the house edge on our long term endeavor of betting 2 tm parlays. if you set up the equation using 4 separate cells in Excel and then plugging them into the equation then you can find the house edge on any parlay given the expected win rate.
in our case of a 50% winner, the House edge on a 2 tmr is 10%. yikes.
Should I continue on with a 53% winner, 55% winner and 58.82% winner (which happens to be our gracious host's winning percentage the L3 years in NCAAF)?
I can do spell it out here, or we could let some posters get their hands dirty and take a crack at it.
I forgot to include the house edge on the straight bet that we know is 4.54 is arrived at with the same formula
.50 (expected win rate) X .91 (our winnings on a winning wager) - .50 (our expected lose rate) X 1 (our loses on a losing wager)
House Edge 4.54%
Which brings me to the importance of reduced juice long term, even for the rec bettor. Heritage goes 108, lowering the house edge 3.7%, lowering our B/E point, improving our chances to stay in the game longer, which is the goal, right?
5Dimes will give you 105 and shade all numbers in between. Getting down to 105 lowers us the House Edge to 2.4%, lower B/E point, improved chances.
Just thought it appropriate to throw this math out there as well to help illustrate to any newbies or inexperienced bettors to take the reduced juice over the bonus any day (EDIT: not sure books even do this anymore, but back in the day some would offer 20% bonus OR reduced juice).
12 straight non-winning weeks in a row. That is almost impossible to do if you were trying to.
Road Favorites, bad team (jets) and over 50's yep that's going to do it. I got lucky so far I laid -4.5 with Detroit but it's not over.
So if it holds I got a shot and just losing Juice this week excited about that
It just doesn't get any better, After the Jet Game and the Detroit gave I won't make another bet this year in the regular season. They also cost me a nice 3 team teaser.
Funny thing is people continue to handicap the NFL like its on
The level. Until this thinking changes the losses will continue. For the third time rip up all that math work and flush it
12 straight non-winning weeks in a row. That is almost impossible to do if you were trying to.
To be fair, Scott fared decently against the line this week. Jets line closed at 6. he released 4.5. detriot closed 7. when he released new england/mia 51.5 it was 50.5 for most of my sites. It closed at 51. hou and sf he matched the closing line. Washing is still unknown. Technically speaking, EV wise, he should have made money this week.
I really believe Scott would do better to vary his release times depending on lines throughout the weeks. This is how professional sports bettors bet. Nobody bets all at one time on a friday because lines move in and out of the zone you need. I think waiting until friday allows the market to be too mature and too difficult to beat. I don't know if that would help scott...
To be fair, Scott fared decently against the line this week. Jets line closed at 6. he released 4.5. detriot closed 7. when he released new england/mia 51.5 it was 50.5 for most of my sites. It closed at 51. hou and sf he matched the closing line. Washing is still unknown. Technically speaking, EV wise, he should have made money this week.
I really believe Scott would do better to vary his release times depending on lines throughout the weeks. This is how professional sports bettors bet. Nobody bets all at one time on a friday because lines move in and out of the zone you need. I think waiting until friday allows the market to be too mature and too difficult to beat. I don't know if that would help scott...
Pretty much the only good post itt for the last 2 weeks.
Comments
You didn't need to go another forum there were plenty of times he gave himself a push or a lost when I would email him back telling him a better number could be easily attained. That was before this release time and he would give all his plays at once. Last year towards the end of the year he was close to winning a contest and didn't want to release his plays till Saturday and he would take the worst of it on some of the games. His honesty should never be in question I know him for a while and we have talked on many occasions. Not much this year not much to say. Cut the guy a little slack He's never been through anything like this before the pressure has to be bothering him. I said this somewhere on page 10, 11, 12 somewhere lets just kill this thread. I know Goats that would be censorship and we don't do that here but this horse is dead long ago. Goats I mean that in a respectful way it's the decision of the board and I will abide by it. I just think there's really nothing more to say. Maybe it takes some pressure off you know he's reading. I will not post again in this thread.
Personally, I feel there are still valid points being made, some of which have nothing to do with Scott but are more general in nature.
1-The general math used, similar to Dr Bob's is becoming more and more saturated into the market. Scott does do a good job of breaking this down further with injuries, QB's, etc which helps. But that being said, relying less on math edges and more on the angles to tie into the math is what sent Dr Bob to breakeven.
2-While they probably intend well, you shouldn't follow a tout's bankroll suggestions. If you are betting 3% on NFL (aggressive, especially on Friday) then you probably should be betting even more on stuff like RAS cbb. So it's either huge variance, or your weighting is out of whack compared to your edge. Which definitely can happen, but it's not ideal.
Not resizing $ wise or % wise? Not resizing the $ amount is obviously catastrophic when losing. Keeping the % is fine if you really think everything is still in tact
Yes, I'd like to see this laid out for us as well.
Trust me, NOONE hits 55% over thousands of plays (yes, when they are monitored). A service that advertised that they hit 55% would get extremely few customers. Dr Bob made a huge mistake in explaining his system. A HUGE MISTAKE!
I'm confused...
The sharp internet books used Dr Bob's explanation of his method to correct their lines. This is especially true for big favorites.
In terms of growth the math is probably beyond the scope of this thread (and I realize the above will be bts for many as well, but you asked), however the posts you quoted are consistent w/ rational utility functions.
That's the guy from the show Numb3ers don't mess with him. I love this guy.
amirite OT
I still think your'e better off buying out of the money options on day of expiry with 10 minutes to go to the closing bell. earnings release days
This is addressed to the entirety of the BT family, so when the word you is employed, it is in the sense of the collective and not singular to you, lest you feel slighted in some fashion.
first start with the understanding the house edge on parlays is much greater than the 4.54% on the -110 Straight Bet. next, check your book for their parlay payouts. we can use 13/5 to keep it simple, but the math is simple and i will provide the equations here and you guys can toy with the numbers.
much like a coin flip for our example, we will use an expected win rate of 50%, which would put the likelihood of hitting a 2 tmr at 25% (.50 X .50) and a 3 tmr at 12.5% (.50 X .50 X .50), you get the idea.
so we take our expected win rate on 2 tmr 25%
multiplied by our payout on winners 13/5
minus our expected lose rate on 2 tmr 75%
mulitplied by our loss on the parlay 1
so we have .25 X 13/5 - .75 X 1 to get the house edge on our long term endeavor of betting 2 tm parlays. if you set up the equation using 4 separate cells in Excel and then plugging them into the equation then you can find the house edge on any parlay given the expected win rate.
in our case of a 50% winner, the House edge on a 2 tmr is 10%. yikes.
Should I continue on with a 53% winner, 55% winner and 58.82% winner (which happens to be our gracious host's winning percentage the L3 years in NCAAF)?
I can do spell it out here, or we could let some posters get their hands dirty and take a crack at it.
thoughts?
Okay Bobby D.
.50 (expected win rate) X .91 (our winnings on a winning wager) - .50 (our expected lose rate) X 1 (our loses on a losing wager)
House Edge 4.54%
Which brings me to the importance of reduced juice long term, even for the rec bettor. Heritage goes 108, lowering the house edge 3.7%, lowering our B/E point, improving our chances to stay in the game longer, which is the goal, right?
5Dimes will give you 105 and shade all numbers in between. Getting down to 105 lowers us the House Edge to 2.4%, lower B/E point, improved chances.
Just thought it appropriate to throw this math out there as well to help illustrate to any newbies or inexperienced bettors to take the reduced juice over the bonus any day (EDIT: not sure books even do this anymore, but back in the day some would offer 20% bonus OR reduced juice).
Edit Edit: Some rounding involved above.
must say i am quite disappointed. math posted as request and yet no input at all.
makes me question your motivation, as it appears to not be interest in the math whatsoever...
Road Favorites, bad team (jets) and over 50's yep that's going to do it. I got lucky so far I laid -4.5 with Detroit but it's not over.
So if it holds I got a shot and just losing Juice this week excited about that
The level. Until this thinking changes the losses will continue. For the third time rip up all that math work and flush it
To be fair, Scott fared decently against the line this week. Jets line closed at 6. he released 4.5. detriot closed 7. when he released new england/mia 51.5 it was 50.5 for most of my sites. It closed at 51. hou and sf he matched the closing line. Washing is still unknown. Technically speaking, EV wise, he should have made money this week.
I really believe Scott would do better to vary his release times depending on lines throughout the weeks. This is how professional sports bettors bet. Nobody bets all at one time on a friday because lines move in and out of the zone you need. I think waiting until friday allows the market to be too mature and too difficult to beat. I don't know if that would help scott...
Pretty much the only good post itt for the last 2 weeks.